Second step, learn some economics! It will hugely open your eyes to understanding how the world works, and is essential to learn to be able to properly analyze the pros and cons of each party's policy offerings.

sen8or: Neither labour nor nationals policies are vastly different, they are both aiming squarely at the centre voter with core policies like education, health and social welfare.

While in the past, I'd totally agree Labour/National, there is hardly much of a difference!

If anything, I'd say the core difference between them is: Labour is "the party of reform", so it makes the changes, and then when National comes in it is the "steady as she goes, conservative party" which as National just keeps on going along with the old Labour policies which had been implemented in the previous terms. (for instance, take as an example student loans. This was a huge change by Labour, it was described at the time as "the biggest ever election bribe". National was ranting and raving against this while in opposition! National wins an election at last, what happens then? They of course keep the student loans! Not changing a thing, aside from the most minor of minor tinkerings. So you see, in the end, it really does seem like there is very little difference between National and Labour!)

However....... it looks to me that this election will be quite different in terms of the gap in the difference between voting National vs Labour.

Why? Because we no longer have FPP ("First Past the Post"), but instead we have MPP.

So no longer is it National vs Labour. But instead it is the National led coalition vs the Labour lead coalition.

What would a National led coalition look like? Well, it looks like they might govern by themselves. (or perhaps need a couple more MPs or so to support them from some minor parties, who wouldn't be making much as a difference as they're way too tiny to have substantial influence) This means if National wins the next government will basically be the same as we've had for the last 6yrs, which really isn't so radically different than what we had under Helen Clark beforehand, more or less.

What would a Labour led coalition look like? Well, Labour is polling so very low (which is an interesting point in itself.... I'd say it is because National has moved so far to the left they've taken all of Labour's center voters, and Labour's leadership has been too weak to fight back and regain those center voters. Instead they're scared about the ones they're losing on the far left to Greens and Internet Mana), thus Labour likely needs *all* the support from NZ First, Greens, & Internet-Mana. This would surely be a very unstable government, as they each hate each others guts, especially NZ First vs Greens! Would be a highly radical government too, as Labour (unlike National) would have to give up a lot of ministerial positions to their coalition partners. For instance, the Greens would not only be getting their first ever Minister, they'd likely get a third or so of the total number! Possibly Deputy PM too. Such a government would be a very very different one from one in which Labour has most of the ministerial portfolios for themselves (like they did under Helen Clark).

So I highly recommend looking beyond merely what a party says their policies are, but also look at the bigger picture of how would a vote for them work out in a government they form after the election?

Who I am: multi time Ironman finisher, University of Auckland graduate, Freelancer (mainly focused on website development, message me for work).

You're right on the money there, a government lead (initially) by Cunliffe, with Laila Harre, Russell Norman, Metiria Turei, Hone Harawira and possibly Winston all being in charge of critical ministerial portfolios, wow, and when Cunliffe gets rolled mid term by Andrew Little (most likely), eeek, last business left please turn out the lights as you depart......

sen8or: Neither labour nor nationals policies are vastly different, they are both aiming squarely at the centre voter with core policies like education, health and social welfare.

While in the past, I'd totally agree Labour/National, there is hardly much of a difference!

If anything, I'd say the core difference between them is: Labour is "the party of reform", so it makes the changes, and then when National comes in it is the "steady as she goes, conservative party" which as National just keeps on going along with the old Labour policies which had been implemented in the previous terms. (for instance, take as an example student loans. This was a huge change by Labour, it was described at the time as "the biggest ever election bribe". National was ranting and raving against this while in opposition! National wins an election at last, what happens then? They of course keep the student loans! Not changing a thing, aside from the most minor of minor tinkerings. So you see, in the end, it really does seem like there is very little difference between National and Labour!)

However....... it looks to me that this election will be quite different in terms of the gap in the difference between voting National vs Labour.

Why? Because we no longer have FPP ("First Past the Post"), but instead we have MPP.

So no longer is it National vs Labour. But instead it is the National led coalition vs the Labour lead coalition.

What would a National led coalition look like? Well, it looks like they might govern by themselves. (or perhaps need a couple more MPs or so to support them from some minor parties, who wouldn't be making much as a difference as they're way too tiny to have substantial influence) This means if National wins the next government will basically be the same as we've had for the last 6yrs, which really isn't so radically different than what we had under Helen Clark beforehand, more or less.

What would a Labour led coalition look like? Well, Labour is polling so very low (which is an interesting point in itself.... I'd say it is because National has moved so far to the left they've taken all of Labour's center voters, and Labour's leadership has been too weak to fight back and regain those center voters. Instead they're scared about the ones they're losing on the far left to Greens and Internet Mana), thus Labour likely needs *all* the support from NZ First, Greens, & Internet-Mana. This would surely be a very unstable government, as they each hate each others guts, especially NZ First vs Greens! Would be a highly radical government too, as Labour (unlike National) would have to give up a lot of ministerial positions to their coalition partners. For instance, the Greens would not only be getting their first ever Minister, they'd likely get a third or so of the total number! Possibly Deputy PM too. Such a government would be a very very different one from one in which Labour has most of the ministerial portfolios for themselves (like they did under Helen Clark).

So I highly recommend looking beyond merely what a party says their policies are, but also look at the bigger picture of how would a vote for them work out in a government they form after the election?

gzt: Btw, ignore voter opinion polls to large extent. They are frequently just part of the game instead of being fully independent. That includes the polls with the word 'independent' in the title.

A random guess that you're a Labour supporter then...

You appear to have missed a key word in the thread title, that is, unbiased.

Whereas ignoring polls that show Labour are irrevocably down the toilet is totally unbiased and neutral. OK, got it - just the same as the NZ media

The thread is not about the merits of any particular party, it's about where to get unbiased information.

Yup, sorry, straying badly off topic. I guess my point is that truly unbiased opinion is hard to find. The recruitment by the Herald of a strident socialist as a regular guest columnist today being a good example of this

I think it's inherently difficult to get unbiased political opinion because if you're interested in politics, you're likely to be biased. I think National radio NZ is possibly the least biased news medium at the moment

gzt: Btw, ignore voter opinion polls to large extent. They are frequently just part of the game instead of being fully independent. That includes the polls with the word 'independent' in the title.

A random guess that you're a Labour supporter then...

You appear to have missed a key word in the thread title, that is, unbiased.

Whereas ignoring polls that show Labour are irrevocably down the toilet is totally unbiased and neutral. OK, got it - just the same as the NZ media

The thread is not about the merits of any particular party, it's about where to get unbiased information.

Yup, sorry, straying badly off topic. I guess my point is that truly unbiased opinion is hard to find. The recruitment by the Herald of a strident socialist as a regular guest columnist today being a good example of this

I think it's inherently difficult to get unbiased political opinion because if you're interested in politics, you're likely to be biased. I think National radio NZ is possibly the least biased news medium at the moment

I don't think that's particularly true. I haven't formed a bias towards any parties yet. I have an idea of who I might vote for. But it is in no way secure. I think a lot of people are out there with the same problem or lack there of. I don't think this is really helping the cause though. Continuing the search still for more info.